Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 432 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, one of the things we have not debated at length in this house in the past is the very real cultural issue that surrounds this subject. We have certainly debated the religious issues, the moral issues and the legal issues. This is a multicultural society. We have spoken at length about the importance of multiculturalism in Australia, and certainly in Canberra. We have all spoken about how we are one of the most multicultural cities in Australia. We have embraced that and I think everybody here should be very proud of that. I believe strongly that multiculturalism and different cultural beliefs are something that we need to take on board when we look at this legislation.

When we look at the people who make up the Canberra community we are not talking about just Anglicans, Catholics and people of other religious beliefs. We are also talking about people from very different cultural backgrounds that bring with them, I suppose, another layer of religious beliefs that are based upon history and all sorts of different things. When you look at some of the Buddhist beliefs and some of the Confucian beliefs, things like devotion and sacrifice for the wellbeing of others are an appropriate way to go. I am sure that we would all agree with that. Do devotion and sacrifice mean, in the end, saying, "Yes, we will use this legislation; we will be part of a voluntary euthanasia approach because we simply do not want to be a burden on the community any longer."?

I know that this is a difficult issue, but we do have people from the Japanese culture, people from the Indian culture, indigenous Australians, people from Buddhist backgrounds, Taoism, all those areas, Mr Speaker, who have very different and very definite beliefs on this subject that I do not believe have been taken on board. I believe very strongly that those people need to feel safe and secure in our society if we are to be a multicultural society.

Again, I believe that the Medical Treatment Act that we have already passed, even with some tightening up, is the appropriate way to go. It does give people the right to adequate pain relief. It does give people the right to die with dignity. It does ensure that doctors who are part of that death with dignity scenario, even if they give people doses of pain-killers that may bring forward death, are protected. At this stage to take the next step, I believe, Mr Speaker, is, firstly, not necessary, and, secondly, potentially very dangerous and may, just may, make a lot of people of different religious and cultural backgrounds in our society less comfortable. From my perspective, there would have to be a very good reason to do that. At this stage I do not believe we have given our Medical Treatment Act a chance to grow - to grow with our society and with medical science.

To sum up, Mr Speaker, I believe very strongly, as I am sure everybody here does, that everybody in our society should be given a right to die with dignity. Everybody in our society, when faced with a terminal condition, when faced with the situation that their quality of life is in many cases very bad indeed, must have access to appropriate services. I believe that that is the case in the ACT. We must have legislation in place to protect doctors and other health professionals who are part of providing that dignity with pain relief. We have that in place, Mr Speaker. To take another step at this stage, I believe, would create legislation that is simply too rigid and, if anything, would take away choices rather than give new choices.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .